Lol the title of this is right... i did infact just read some hate mail, from the self title hate mail section of the FSM site. It worried me slightly, i think it was more the actual people than their apparent beliefs. I mean surely if a person believes in a religion or faith then their beliefs shouldnt require everyone else to ... well ... Believe, should they!?!
Or is that just me!?!
But yes the people who were sending the actual hatemail worried me greatly, as supporting a religion is one thing, writing violent and abusive messages is something totally different in its own way it sort of leads down a path to eventually remind me of terrorists and their beliefs and how they infact support them!
Does anyone else think that i'm making sense or did someone spike my crunchy nut cornflakes this morning?!?!

I browsed through the hatemail and it seems to me all the email comes from people who declined to state their religion/belief or they are Christian (by Christian, I mean Catholic, all the various Protestant denominations, and generally anyone who bases their faith on the Old/New Testament).

Has there been any email/threats/insults come from any other religions? I'm just curious?

Actually I would suggest that even if you could find someone who does not know what that particular phrase means (and I suggest many non English speakers would know) they would nevertheless get the general idea from the tone of voice etc useed to deliver it.

TheLee wrote:I mean surely if a person believes in a religion or faith then their beliefs shouldnt require everyone else to ... well ... Believe, should they!?!Or is that just me!?!

Ohhhhh, someone's gonna yell at me for this:

If you truly believe in a religion, you believe you are right. Therefore, what others believe is wrong. Therefore, when others are wrong, you have to set them right. Ergo if you truly believe in a religion, it not only a good idea but a NECESSITY that you show that person "the way."

Obviously, not everyone is like this, but I'm talking about religion in general. Every religion, whether it is this way now or not, will eventually develop so that those at it's top believe they have to pass on the "love".

Examples:

-Rwanda

-Anglicizing of the Native Americans

-The Inquisition

[/rant]

I am anti-"txt talk." I support good grammar. I am part of the "Save the Vowels" movement. For your sanity and mind, type out your damn words.

well, only if its in the creed. yes, most christian churches say 'convert others', but some, like UUism and Satanism and even Pastafarianism say to say to converts 'were here. we won't force you. we are pretty anti-dogmatic...'

I would only say religion in general is like that because most religions so far have been such... not that it is a requirement for something to be a religion.

~Qwerty

daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple'

Any statistical increase in the usage of the emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.

The desire to convert is not restricted to the religious. I have a horrible propensity to become evangelically socialist and evangenically environmentalist. where religious people hit you with "you are going to hell" I substitute "there are plenty of vacant lamposts when the revolution comes" and "your house will be underwater in 30 years and I will be laughing my head off".

The difference is that I try not to do so using a stream of expletives and do my 'evangelism' has an internal logic unlike the assertion that "god loves you and is benevolent but when you die he will send you to HELL you bleeping motherbleeping bleep bleepity bleeps!!!'. I dont pretend to love arms dealers and global financiers and I dont claim that my house will not be under water too.

Best regards

Goat

--------------------------

"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas." - George Bernard Shaw

tone it down, Aegers new, and pretty good. although he does have yet to learn to say "most" when he wants to say "all" unless he knows for certain. and other semantical, yet important, things like that.

daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple'

Any statistical increase in the usage of the emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.

My point is that not all religions do it, not even most religions do it, and not even all, or even all major, christian sects do it. Amish and Mennonites are definitely not into proselytising, the Amish specifically and formally encourage their own children to evaluate and choose their way only if they believe in it. I think Quakers don't proselytise either. I'm not familiar enough with all christian sects to indentify the others that don't, but I'm reasonably sure there are some...

Laughing in the rain.
Dancing in the desert sand,
Somersaults through life.

I am Quaker, actually. Well, radical, atheist Quaker. Quakerism as philosophy, if you will (pacifism, find inner peace in silence, the power of the people as opposed to central figure, or in religion, minister, etc.). But I do usually go to Meeting (Quaker equivalent of a church), and I can tell you that, though the ones in MA are mostly very liberal, what I described above is there as well. But I'm glad people care enough to criticize.

...and don't get me started on the Mormon Church across the street

I am anti-"txt talk." I support good grammar. I am part of the "Save the Vowels" movement. For your sanity and mind, type out your damn words.

I'd like to think of myself as a progressive, liberal, accepting (do whatever you want attitude as-long-as-it-dosen't-infringe-on-anyone-else's-rights) left wing kind of person. But as many cookie-cutter libertarians as myself, I have this crunchy, granola, hippy belief. I think that we should consider the environment, eat organic, think global, act local, blah, blah, blah.

Then someone said to me something that was pretty profound. He said, "The right wing tells people what to think, the left wing tells people what to do". It was kind of devistating in a way because it's true, we lefties DO tell people what to do. And my libertarian side finds that hard to live it down.

So what the hell was my point? I forget... oh yeah... Stay out of my booze!!!